Bangkok Herps

Also because stuff like this happens:

Black man has rape and murder confession beat out of him, nearly gets the death penalty, spends 19 years in prison and is still there even though DNA evidence has proved he didn't do it, all the witnesses have recanted and said the police forced them to testify, and the conviction has been overturned.

Why Is This Man Still in Jail?

If your read the article, his case was part of a large string of cases where multiple police in Philly were intimidating people into confessions and "witness testimonies" left and right. Not to mention that mentally unstable people sometimes confess to crimes they didn't commit as well. A confession by itself doesn't prove anything. A lot of innocent people have confessed to a lot of crimes.

Of course, you and I and everyone else knows that Tsarnaev is guilty. But a just country goes through the legal process just to be sure, rather than relying simply on court of public opinion.

And yes, all available research points to the fact that the death penalty is not a deterrent. The largest issue is that people who commit heinous crimes don't sit around thinking "What would I like better if I got caught - life in a maximum security prison or lethal injection?" If they think they're going to get caught, then either they won't do it or they simply don't care what will happen. Usually they don't even think about it. Study after study has shown that the death penalty has no impact on crime rates. Not to mention that "an eye for an eye" is clearly not the kind of society that most of us want to live in - we can rise above murderers who kill for 'justice'.

Black people are not the only ones encouraged to vote by pretending that Republicans are all racists. It also speaks to the far left that make up Obama's base.

You ignored everything else I posted, all the scientific studies and clear quotes from Republican leaders, to say that?

Obama exploits racial animosity to get far-left votes? Because otherwise, those guys would, what, have voted for Mitt Romney?

Guess what - alienating White people and moderates to appeal to the fringe of your solid base really wouldn't have been an intelligent strategy for anyone. Even you can figure that out.

Again, the math has already been worked out for you, proven in scientific studies and verified by Republican leadership for 40 years. You can't deny that.

Yeah....that racist, evil black man (who is half white).....lol....the stupidity continues!

And raised primarily by his White grandparents from Kansas of all places...in that hotbed of racial animosity and the Black power movement....Hawaii!!!

Even recent Republican leaders have been forced to admit the strategy, while claiming that they don't do it anymore. Here's Ken Mehlman, the recent Republican National Committee chairman. Of course, you can decide for yourself whether any of the mathematics have changed at all.

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Of course, Republicans have already KNOWN that exploiting racial animosity has far more to gain from White voters than from Black voters, which is why they've been openly doing it for more than 40 years. This is a matter of public record - you can't deny it from the facts.

Southern Strategy

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

That was Kevin Phillips, President Richard Nixon's campaign manager, speaking in 1970. And the Southern Strategy had already been implemented from Goldwater in 1964.

Lee Atwater, advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, was even more blunt. This is Atwater speaking in 1981 (just after Reagan's victory) to political scientist Alexander Lamis. The full 42-minute audiotape of this interview is publicly available.

You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."^[42]

You can't deny it. You have major political strategists from Goldwater through Nixon through Reagan through Bush openly acknowledging that they exploited racial animosity to get White votes for Republicans, because the Black votes simply weren't there. How can you deny that now?

Black men or half black men can do stupid things too. It is racist to think otherwise. Obama has not helped the racial situation in America at all. In fact he has encouraged racial animosity to generate votes.

Juvenile talking points with no basis or foundation in reality.

But you can't explain why I'm wrong and you are right. Sounds like you just lost the argument. Arrivederci!

Really? I can do it this easy.

Black people are only about 10% of the voting population in America, and they were already voting 90%+ for Democrats before they'd ever heard of Barack Obama. Therefore Obama can gain an extra 1-2% from their votes at most.

While White people are 70%+ of the voting population, split between Republicans and Democrats, and many of both parties have racial animosity to some degree. Therefore Obama could lose a lot from their votes.

Encouraging racial animosity between Whites and Blacks would be idiocy for Obama because he has FAR more to lose among White votes than he has to gain among Black votes.

Does that explain well enough for you?

Want to have a different way of explaining why you're wrong? Studies show that Obama lost more votes than he gained by being Black: According to the study, Obama gained about 1% of the vote that he wouldn't have had otherwise by being Black, but lost about 5% of the vote that he would have had if he wasn't Black, resulting in a net loss of about 4%.

Political scientists Charles Tien, Richard Nadeau, and Michael S. Lewis-Beck recently reported a survey study that compared early-2012 estimates of Obama’s racial penalty to the one they calculated just before the 2008 election (here). In 2008, focusing on those survey respondents who said that they expected candidate Obama to favor blacks if he was elected, the researchers generated a 5-point estimate of the racial penalty – the percentage of voters who would have voted Democratic if the Democratic candidate had been white. That calculation seemed prescient. Although Obama won the 2008 election with 53% of the popular vote, given the economic situation and the large victory that Democrats scored in the 2008 congressional elections, history suggests that Obama should have had won in a landslide, with perhaps 58% of the vote.

Replicating their 2008 survey in 2012, Tien and colleagues predict that the “price” Obama will pay in November will be about 3.3 points – less than in 2008 but consequential nonetheless.

Obama and Holder must be crying themselves to sleep now they failed to convict Wilson, despite throwing everything into the so called investigation ( more of a witch hunt ).

If I were a white Ferguson cop at the moment, I'd be refusing to go into the black neighbourhoods. Once the bad boys got going, the black community would be begging for whitey to go back. Tuff!

No one thought Wilson would have a chance of a federal conviction from the get go. If you think either Obama or Holder was hoping for that, then you certainly aren't familiar with federal law.

Have you read the report? What does the report have to do with the police "going into black neighborhoods" or not? If you read the report, you'd realize how ironic and silly your statement is.

What?? When the liberal news media started reporting this incident, they repeated daily a white police officer gunned down an unarmed black teenager for jay walking. Even Obama stopped playing golf to say he was sending Eric Holder, who was busy trying to blame someone else for loosing 1400 weapons in Mexico, down to Ferguson to get that out of control white police officer and any of his friends. Your smug mention about not being familiar with federal law and that neither Obama or Holder was hoping to prosecute Officer Wilson is naive.

Then as a result of Officer Wilson having to shoot a 290 pound gang banger to death for trying to relieve him of his duty weapon sparked riots and looting. Do you or anyone else on this forum know of any other race in America that destroys their own community because they get angry. I didn't think so, neither do I.

Blaming the white community over blacks being responsible for a disproportionate percentage of felonies committed in America, is stupid. It's way beyond time for these people to put down their crack pipes, and start accepting responsibility for their own actions.

When you posted this in response to my comment, it was clear that you had no idea what I was talking about.

I said that there was no chance for a federal conviction. Nearly everything you listed happened before the federal part of the case was even the focus. You clearly don't know the difference between, "This man did something illegal and wrong" and "This man did something that can bring federal charges." Educate yourself on what specific crimes can bring federal charges over and above state charges, and then you'll understand what I said.

As far as your silly "Blaming the White community..." rant, just read the report. 99% of the report isn't even about felonies. And "start accepting responsibility" is hilarious considering what was happening. You clearly haven't read it because you're saying nonsense.

That's awesome Jock. You're just a savant - you don't need to have ever seen real data that supports the biases you already have, because that data will come one day!

Do you realize that if the data is enormously moved by a single event, then the data probably isn't correlated to some single variable that is widespread outside of that event? Scientists will often move one data pool from their study to see if the relation still holds, and declare the connection invalid if a single data pool take away the effect. If you need Rotherham data to prove your anti-Muslim point, even with millions of Muslims all over the country, then perhaps the issue is Rotherham, not Islam.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*

* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Your conclusions are false. You need to re-take basic mathematics.

You need to know what percentage each ethnic group as a percentage of the total population, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Whites make up 87% of the population of the UK, but, 78% of sex criminals.

Asians make up 6.9% of the population, but, are 9.7% of sex criminals.

Statistically, Asians are more likely to offend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

My goodness, the irony, the irony.

First off, there are no mathematical errors in anything I said. But I labeled it "satire" for a reason. It was a laughably simplistic look at the problem that ignored all statistical analysis.

Just like everything you are saying.

If you understand how wrong my simplistic conclusions would be, then maybe you can begin to realize how someone who knows more about analyzing data would laugh at how simplistic your conclusions are.

Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable. Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

In fact, all three of those are likely to be true. And you can't tell in the least whether being Muslim (or even being Asian) is a meaningful additional variable until you've done the work to remove the other correlating factors like poverty and age. And even then, you might just have stronger proof for correlation but you wouldn't have done the real causation until you did some real experiments and much better longitudinal studies.

Follow all that? Does anyone here spouting off cherry-picked and simplistic numbers understand the evidence you actually need to have to make the claims that you're trying to make? Or do you come up with the biased claims first, and then look for the data later?

And "A handful of men committing 1400 offences will be under-represented if the statistics are counting perpetrators." Do you even realize what you're saying? You're comparing the # of offenders to the % of the population they represent, but then you're going to multiply them by the number of offenses they each committed? And somehow that data will show a correlation to...what exactly? What would you even compare that number to? Did you ethink that one through before you typed it?

What I posted are mathematical facts. Where do I say that I will multiply anything by anything?

I have not stated my position on the OP, I just have a problem with you misrepresenting an argument by faulty maths.

Here, I'll make it simple for you to understand.

99 people of a single ethnicity, commit one crime each.

One person of another ethnicity commits 101 crimes.

If you count by perpetrator, the one man is 1% of the total.

If you count by crimes, that one man commits 50.5% of the crime.

See? It depends on how YOUR statistics are created, which I notice you still haven't provided a link for.

I'm sorry you don't understand simple, school-boy maths, but then, it's not my handicap to bear.

You're proven my point far better than anything else I could say on my own. (Though I do have a link, which you quote yourself in your own post, so very weird that you say I "haven't provided a link for". Of course, my analysis of the numbers in that link was a joke, which you also haven't seemed to figure out.)

Here's a good plan for you.

Find a friend who has actual knowledge of statistical analysis. They can be a scientist of any type, any researcher who took statistical analysis and has to produce results that will be published in peer-reviewed journals, absolutely anyone in any field who does real stat work that has to past muster.

Now, ask them to look at what's been said, and try to explain the parts to you that you don't understand.

Really nothing more to say than that.

Obama and Holder must be crying themselves to sleep now they failed to convict Wilson, despite throwing everything into the so called investigation ( more of a witch hunt ).

If I were a white Ferguson cop at the moment, I'd be refusing to go into the black neighbourhoods. Once the bad boys got going, the black community would be begging for whitey to go back. Tuff!

No one thought Wilson would have a chance of a federal conviction from the get go. If you think either Obama or Holder was hoping for that, then you certainly aren't familiar with federal law.

Have you read the report? What does the report have to do with the police "going into black neighborhoods" or not? If you read the report, you'd realize how ironic and silly your statement is.

That's awesome Jock. You're just a savant - you don't need to have ever seen real data that supports the biases you already have, because that data will come one day!

Do you realize that if the data is enormously moved by a single event, then the data probably isn't correlated to some single variable that is widespread outside of that event? Scientists will often move one data pool from their study to see if the relation still holds, and declare the connection invalid if a single data pool take away the effect. If you need Rotherham data to prove your anti-Muslim point, even with millions of Muslims all over the country, then perhaps the issue is Rotherham, not Islam.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 89.7 per cent of proceedings for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (89.6 per cent) and sexual assault (89.2 per cent) proceedings (see Table 4.2). 9,042 defendants proceeded against for sexual offences in 2011 (91.2 per cent of total) were of a known ethnicity (see Table 4.4). Of these persons:  78.0 per cent were White;  9.9 per cent were Black;  9.7 per cent were Asian;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*



* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Your conclusions are false. You need to re-take basic mathematics.

You need to know what percentage each ethnic group as a percentage of the total population, otherwise it's an exercise in futility.

Whites make up 87% of the population of the UK, but, 78% of sex criminals.

Asians make up 6.9% of the population, but, are 9.7% of sex criminals.

Statistically, Asians are more likely to offend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom

My goodness, the irony, the irony.

First off, there are no mathematical errors in anything I said. But I labeled it "satire" for a reason. It was a laughably simplistic look at the problem that ignored all statistical analysis.

Just like everything you are saying.

If you understand how wrong my simplistic conclusions would be, then maybe you can begin to realize how someone who knows more about analyzing data would laugh at how simplistic your conclusions are.

Once again, you haven't factored in any possible correlating variables, haven't shown the slightest sense that there's a meaningful correlation to this variable and not just a shared correlation to another variable. Maybe the actual answer is that poor people commit sexual assaults more frequently, and there are just more Muslims who happen to be poor. Maybe the actual answer is that young men commit sexual assaults more frequently, and Muslims are more represented about younger men than older. Maybe the actual answer is, like you say, that Asians are more likely to commit sexual assault regardless of religion, and Muslims are more highly represented among Asians?

In fact, all three of those are likely to be true. And you can't tell in the least whether being Muslim (or even being Asian) is a meaningful additional variable until you've done the work to remove the other correlating factors like poverty and age. And even then, you might just have stronger proof for correlation but you wouldn't have done the real causation until you did some real experiments and much better longitudinal studies.

Follow all that? Does anyone here spouting off cherry-picked and simplistic numbers understand the evidence you actually need to have to make the claims that you're trying to make? Or do you come up with the biased claims first, and then look for the data later?



And "A handful of men committing 1400 offences will be under-represented if the statistics are counting perpetrators." Do you even realize what you're saying? You're comparing the # of offenders to the % of the population they represent, but then you're going to multiply them by the number of offenses they each committed? And somehow that data will show a correlation to...what exactly? What would you even compare that number to? Did you ethink that one through before you typed it?

Also found this Freedom of Information request:

As at 31 March 2014, the latest point in time for which data is available for public use, the male prison population in England and Wales for all offenders serving immediate custodial sentence for rape was 5,682. Of this, there were 676 offenders who self-declared their religion as Muslim (12% of the total).

http://www.google.co.in/url?q=https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324097/number-males-rape-muslim.doc&sa=U&ei=2NP6VNnDBo-wuASU8YGwBw&ved=0CDcQFjAF&sig2=jGw4tQVtl9ib_sqsN0V1Tw&usg=AFQjCNH0kNl2gXOGvuUzybsy6MizbrTLFQ

Unfortunately, these numbers do not fit your agenda. So the appropriate response is to discard them, and keep searching until you find the numbers that do fit your agenda. Whatever manipulating of the data is necessary to get to something that fits your preconceived beliefs.

Of course, even if you then scan through enough different numbers until you've found the ones that fit your agenda and explained away the ones that don't fit your agenda, you still would only have cherry-picked a supposed correlation. Not a causation.

I checked google like you suggested, and quickly found this data for England and Wales:

In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent). More specifically, males aged 18 and over accounted for 89.7 per cent of proceedings for sexual offences, with similar proportions for rape (89.6 per cent) and sexual assault (89.2 per cent) proceedings (see Table 4.2). 9,042 defendants proceeded against for sexual offences in 2011 (91.2 per cent of total) were of a known ethnicity (see Table 4.4). Of these persons:  78.0 per cent were White;  9.9 per cent were Black;  9.7 per cent were Asian;

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

It looks like the biggest risk factor in offending is maleness. Over 98% of offenders were male, more than twice their representation in the population. We should be doing everything we can to address this clear wave of sexual assault among the ugly male culture in Britain. Starting with White male culture, of course, because they were the largest offending group.*



* I realized that I should post a "satire alert" for those who aren't sensitive to such things.

Looks like someone still doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation.

I'm still waiting for you to even try to show me a single study that shows causation rather than simple correlation.

You certainly don't understand confirmation bias either.

If one analyst says "48%" and another says "14.8%", which one are you going to remember and quote to me?

If Pakistani Muslims commit a disproportionately high number of sexual assaults in England, but English Atheists commit a disproportionately high number of sexual assaults in Thailand, and Spanish Catholics commit a disproportionately high number of sexual assaults in Sri Lanka, and European Jews commit a disproportionately high number of sexual assaults in Australia, which one of those examples are you going to see as emblematic of culture and which one are you not?

if you find actual, broad-scale data that shows a likely causation, instead of correlation, that would be great. Until then, why not try to focus on addressing the problem and leave the stereotypes and biases behind?

Perhaps if you did that, you would figure out something that would actually help reduce sexual assault....because even if you were right that Pakistani Muslims were likely to abuse children, starting a religious back-and-forth with them is only going to provide a cover and won't do one bit to keep any children more safe.

off course had nothing to do with that 85% of the inmated are black & same amount commited crimes by ?

i'm sure a few years arresting the same persons for the same crimes, might turn one synnical

Since you absolutely made up your supposed "facts", my guess is that such "facts" don't really drive the views you hold.

I suggest that you read the four links that I posted above, which relate to the actual situation and other ones like it. Then figure out if your supposed excuse has anything to do with the actual topic.

Then again, this is the third different thread where we've discussed this report and other reports like it (The Department of Justice has already leveled 22 cases like this in the past, and one every single one), and yet not a single naysayer has shown the slightest indication that they're interested in reading the report. Not one post has been made that took this report, or any of the previous scenarios into consideration.

When you don't want to deal with the actual facts at hand, don't want to even educate yourself on what has happened, but still decide that a particular racial group must be to blame, do you know what your real motivation most likely is?

Wow, I'm the prick and I have herpes! Poster maturity here gets stronger every day.

FYI, I'm sure this is very important to you, but I've been reading the thread off and on from the first page since some time ago. Child abuse is odious, protection by the authorities is even more odious, and this terrible scandal is just one more in a sequence of scandals where authorities protected other authorities and men rather than protecting the most vulnerable. There wasn't much to say that hasn't already been said - I haven't seen a single person defending child abuse or defending the cover-up of child abuse, so the most "on-topic" points are redundant.

The only reason I piped in at this point (and more than once earlier, for those who don't notice these things) was to introduce a bit of logic to a poster's attempt to hijack the scandal to serve his own hateful ends. Of course, being unfamiliar with logic, the poster and his cohorts have not recognized it as such, which is why I'll have to explain in fuller detail.

With your superior knowledge and education. Perhaps you could come up with the common denominator that causes Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs and African Muslim Grooming Gangs.to operate with the same MO ?

And while you're at it, you should also figure out what their common denominator is with Westminster politicians, Australian Jews, Northern Ireland childcare givers, private school administrations, US Swimming coaches, and Catholic priests. Sure isn't Islam.

I figured it out, the common denominator is that they are all off topic, which coming to think of it also seems to apply to most of the posts from some of our esteemed members.

You see, there's something called "correlation" and there's something called "causation". They aren't the same.

Learning that you have to prove causation, not just correlation, when you want to show that one variable caused another is one of the basic principles of true investigation.

On top of that, there's something called "confirmation bias". That's what happens when someone only wants to pull out the data that confirms their preconceived notions, rather than looking at the whole picture.

With the combination of confirmation bias and the correlation/causation confusion, it can become very easy to prove any point you want to make. Just pre-select only that data that involves the people you want to fit your theory, and say, "Look, it all correlates!" while ignoring all the data that doesn't fit. You've ignored 90% of the data, and you haven't proved causation, but you feel good inside because your preconceived biases have been confirmed.

In this case, our resident Muslim-obsessed poster pulled out a sex abuse scandal involving a small number of men and shouted, "Look, another scandal with Muslims, it must be their Muslimness!"

I pointed out the stupidity of that logic by pulling out many more far larger sex abuse scandals involving every walk of man, showing that all he had done was cherry-pick the data - he hadn't proven any correlation, much less causation.

Until he takes in all the data and shows there is a correlation, and that that correlation is not correlated to other variables but is an actual product of their Muslim orientation, then his claims of a Muslim connection are nothing more than the products of his own bias.

Of course, making firm claims about our certainty in subjects where we don't have the data at all has been a common pastime recently on these boards.

I'm sure all of you are bright enough to follow that. Question, of course, is whether you will.

LOL. Some people just can't help providing their own object lessons.

No worries though, these attitudes die out soon enough.

Ditto! Racism is definitely a social construct, maintained and financially supported by the elite, as a means for dividing and controlling the masses. The so-called Holy Bible reeks of racism, among the ancients. From a sociological point of view, The United States, as a 238 years-young nation, is still in it's diaper stages of development, compared to Middle Eastern, and Asian cultures. All things (by comparison) considered, the American social system construct, is a millenium more advanced, than what I've seen of 5,000+ years-old Asia.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's was completely unnecessary. The 1964 Congressional passing of the Voter's Rights Act, sufficiently eradicated the main problem. The 1965 Civil Rights Act was ludicrous at best, and a cunning con-game played on all the citizens of the U.S., whites included.

Re: Police racism in Ferguson, MO. If black people would simply grow-up (from a cultural point of view), and start behaving like responsible citizens, police themselves, then the "racism" from whites would simply fade into obscurity. I wonder if the "Reverends" Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons are preaching that sensible notion of civil behavior patterns of development, from their Sunday morning, Gospel singing Pulpits

NativeSon, I suggest you actually read the Ferguson report and then try to explain how any degree of Black "growing up" would have made a money-hungry city just leave them alone:

The systemic issues and frequent Constitutional violations in Ferguson had nothing to do with inappropriate behavior by Black people: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

I also suggest you listen to this report on injustice in Milwaukee: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/547/cops-see-it-differently-part-one

Or this one, which tells a crazy horrifying story about Miami Gardens, but then a success story about Las Vegas: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/548/cops-see-it-differently-part-two

As far as the idea that the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was "completely unnecessary" because the 1964 Voter's Rights Act "sufficiently eradicated the main problem"...that doesn't even make sense. The 1964 Voting Rights Act was a product of the 1960s Civil Rights movement! And systemic discrimination continued afterwards that had nothing to do with voting and was not going to be solved just because Black people could finally go to the polls.

Just read the first story in this article, about housing discrimination post-1960 alone. It will be enough to invalidate your claim: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/

With your superior knowledge and education. Perhaps you could come up with the common denominator that causes Pakistani Muslim Grooming Gangs and African Muslim Grooming Gangs.to operate with the same MO ?

And while you're at it, you should also figure out what their common denominator is with Westminster politicians, Australian Jews, Northern Ireland childcare givers, private school administrations, US Swimming coaches, and Catholic priests. Sure isn't Islam.

Has anyone who had doubts about the systemic problems read the Ferguson report yet? http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Listened to the Milwaukee report? http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/547/cops-see-it-differently-part-one

Listened to the report on Miami Gardens and Las Vegas? http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/548/cops-see-it-differently-part-two

There's a chance here to learn something, if your mind is open to the fact that communties you've never been a part of may really have experienced systematic abuse from the police. Most police do a good job. Most police departments do not have systemic oppression like these do. But the problem is very real in some places, it has a huge impact on the communities it affects, and a simple listen or read would make the indisputable evidence of that clear.

Of course, I've been demonstrating this for three weeks, and as far as I can tell not a single person who disputes this claim has yet bothered to listen or read a single one of the reports. Maybe the idea of being forced to change one's mind about an idea so close to one's heart is truly frightening.

The systematic problems in Ferguson is basically out of control black crime.

How do you know this about black crime in Ferguson?

Have you investigated the cases? Met the perpetrators?

Where do you get any evidence that black crime is out of control in Ferguson?

You don't have the slightest bit of evidence to support your assertion that "out of control black crime" is the problem in Ferguson. The belief can only be based on your desire to exonerate the Ferguson PD and attribute all problems in the justice system to Black people.

Just like you have no evidence whatsoever to doubt the DOJ report, which you would realize if you read it.

If you read the report, you would see for yourself that the evidence is primarily the police officers' own arrest reports, interviews with the officers themselves, and internal city emails. Residents and victims were also interviewed and their points contribute, but they almost take a back seat to the provable violations written in the officers' own words, at times even within the city ordinances themselves. The constitutional violations therein are numerous and obvious.

You don't have any room to doubt the large majority of the DOJ report. But you don't know that, because you haven't read it. If you had, you would just drop out of the thread because you'd see that the large majority of the black people being targeted unfairly by the system weren't even "criminals", and your agenda no longer has a seat in the discussion.

double-post

Any discussion on the multitude of Islamic atrocities is met with cries of "homophobia" by those who wish we should just ignore the dangers of Islamic supremacism in the name of diversity and multiculturalism.

You're mixing up your prejudices -

* it's Islamophobia you're being accused of here

* it's racism for you on the Ferguson thread

* the homophobia that you're accused of must be somewhere else

Leave him alone guys. JockPieandBeans has had a rough stretch. I mean, he's had to endure through:

Catholic Church

Westminster politicians

American public schools

US Swimming

Australia Orthodox Jewish community in Chabad

Northern Ireland/Australia child migrants

one private school after another all over the world

the list goes on and on...


Not to mention White guys coming from all over the world right here to Bangkok, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, etc.


It's about time someone gave him a non-White child abuse scandal that he can express his prejudice over!

Let him blow off his steam so that he can survive the next wave of White and non-Muslim child abuse scandals.